Author: Isabel Marler

Muslim Women In India Ask Top Court To Ban Instant Divorce

Women in India are fighting the harmful talaq divorce practice in court.

Married at 14 and divorced by 16, Seema Parveen had a marriage as brutal as it was short. Now 42, Parveen remembers her husband threatening to hurl her from the balcony of their home. She blinks back tears recalling his rage when she bore him a daughter and not a son.

“His whole family was upset,” she says. In conservative northern India where they lived, boys are preferred over girls — who have been traditionally viewed as a burden. When her daughter was one month old, Parveen went to stay with her mother. “That’s when my husband wrote and said, ‘Talaq.‘ ”

All that’s required for a Muslim man in India to end a marriage is to declare, talaq, which means divorce in Arabic. Pronounced three times, it’s irrevocable. Many Islamic countries have banned the practice.

Parveen says her husband rebuffed all her attempts to return to him.

“I was so young,” she says, “I didn’t know what was happening.”

Maimoona Mollah, president of the All India Democratic Women’s Association, Delhi Chapter, condemns the practice of talaq as “unilateral” and “arbitrary.”

Mollah says women can also initiate divorce. But members of the community say a woman must first consult a cleric, while a man, she says, “severs the relationship” on his own. She says there needs to be a “formal process” for any divorce where a woman and her children receive financial support.

The way talaq is practiced, “it definitely stands in the way of a woman getting her rightful place,” Mollah says.

Several divorced women have petitioned India’s Supreme Court to ban this form of instant divorce. Countries including Pakistan, Tunisia, and Egypt have curbed the practice and moved divorce into the orbit of the state and judiciary.

Zakia Soman, co-founder of the Indian Muslim Women’s Movement,  says the courts provide women “a level playing field.” But she says reforming the Indian Muslim community’s divorce customs won’t be easy.

“Legal reform is just one part of overall reform which is required in society … This is just the beginning,” she says.

Read the full article from NPR.

HRC34: Women human rights defenders challenge fundamentalist and extremist rhetoric and ideologies

A coalition of women human rights defenders draw the attention of the Human Rights Council to the ‘wake-up call of our times’, and reject the normalisation of fundamentalist and extremist rhetoric.

Governments relying on the manipulation of ideas about culture to attack human rights defenders were put on the spotlight yesterday at the Human Rights Council. A coalition of organisations supporting women human rights defenders urged States from all regions to ‘wake up’ and be genuine in their fight against extremist and fundamentalist ideologies.

On behalf of the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) highlighted the importance of ensuring the genuine and safe participation of women human rights defenders in policies and programmes to combat fundamentalist ideologies and rhetoric. ‘In too many instances, civil society groups that oppose fundamentalist and extremist ideologies are themselves branded as threats to State security’ said Ms Pooja Patel, Programme Manager at ISHR. She called on States to remove barriers and obstacles for independent civil society members who promote rights in accordance with international standards.

The Human Rights Council engaged in dialogue with the UN expert on Cultural Rights Karima Bennoune on Friday and Monday. In her report, Ms Bennoune outlined that those defending the rights of women to take part in cultural life are de facto cultural rights defenders. As cultural rights defenders, they are the very antidote to fundamentalist and extremist agendas.

In a joint statement on International Women Human Rights Defenders Day last November, a number of other UN experts had also raised concern over the wave of populism and fundamentalism taking place in the world, and highlighted that ‘women human rights defenders represent an essential counter-power and a colossal force of action’.

Read the full text from International Service for Human Rights.

HRC34: Joint statement on the Rights of the Child Resolution

Following the adoption of a resolution on the protection of the rights of the child  at the 34th session of the Human Rights Council, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the Sexual Rights Initiative, and Child Rights Connect have released a joint statement.

Today, March 24th, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on the protection of the rights of the child in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The resolution, led by the EU and GRULAC, aimed to provide a child’s rights lens to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the adopted text does not represent the most advanced human rights standards pertaining to the protection of the rights of the child and falls below the agreement reached in the 2030 Agenda.

In particular, the resolution fails to incorporate the right to be heard, the right to participate, adolescents’ rights to sexual and reproductive health, and the principle of evolving capacities.  Moreover, the resolution neglects the particular needs of children with disabilities and LGBTI children and does not recognize that family environments are often sites of violence, especially for girls.

As the highest political body dedicated to the promotion of human rights, the Council has a duty to move beyond the status quo, to champion the core principle of universality of human rights for all and to move forward in the development of norms and standards. The Council must demonstrate the political will and leadership necessary to address the protection of the rights of all children everywhere, bearing in mind that they are active agents in their own lives and rights holders under international human rights law.

Read the full text from Sexual Rights Initiative.

Banned and barred, Israel’s women stand up to religious hardliners

Ultra-Orthodox influence has excluded women from speaking at funerals and public prayers, and taken them off the radio.

Over the last decade in different parts of Israel, women have been barred from sections of buses, banned from speaking at cemeteries, blocked from pavements, physically attacked for their clothing choices, airbrushed from newspapers and magazines and removed from the airwaves and news photos.

These challenges are rooted in the objections of many in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community to men and women mixing in public places, and to public representations of women in any form, from actors in advertisements to public figures on the news, or images in books. They affect everything from morning commutes and interior decoration to the most solemn religious ceremonies. Moody was attacked for joining public prayers and the celebration of a bat mitzvah – a girl’s coming of age ceremony – at the Western Wall.

Women have responded to the many attempts to restrict their public roles and physical presence by turning to Israel’s powerful legal system, and again and again the courts have supported them, insisting that segregation is illegal and women should not be silenced.

They have ruled in favour of a woman prevented from speaking at her own father’s burial, against a radio station that barred women from its airwaves – even blocking them from calling phone-in shows – and against bus companies that tried to segregate seating. The women who gather at the Western Wall each month had their right to worship enshrined by the supreme court.

But important as these legal rulings are, they rely on government enforcement and community respect, and both are in short supply in a country where religion and state are closely entwined, and ultra-Orthodox politicians command a powerful and loyal voting block, women activists say.

Nor can the courts legislate for tastes. Advertisers who remove women from their posters and shops, or bus firms which tried to segregate their buses, insist they are simply catering to a growing market, one tempting even to international giants such as Ikea.

A special edition of the catalogue for the Swedish firm’s affordable modern furniture, printed for Israel’s Haredi community, landed on doorsteps late last month, filled with photos of stylish interiors that would look familiar around the world, but for a single-sex version of model families posing inside them. There were no women or girls studying beside the bookshelves, grabbing snacks in the kitchen or relaxing in interiors populated only by men.

The rapid growth [rate of ultra-Orthodox communities] is changing these communities themselves though, feminists say, and the communities which are the most prominent in seeking to restrict women are also seeing the birth of a feminist movement that may be key to the long-term defence of current rights.

Read the full article from The Guardian.

HRC34: States should reject attempts to weaken mandate of UN expert on human rights defenders

Member States of the Human Rights Council should resist attempts to weaken the resolution mandating the UN’s expert on the protection of human rights defenders, the International Service for Human Rights said today.

The Human Rights Council is currently negotiating a resolution (L.5) to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Michel Forst. The resolution, which was formally tabled by Norway on behalf of more than 60 supporters, is now being attacked by adverse amendments tabled by the Russian Federation, China, Cuba and Pakistan. The amendments and the resolution are expected to be considered – and voted upon – as early as Thursday, 23 March 2017.

South Africa has also tabled an amendment, which could – if appropriately rephrased – serve to increase attention to some at-risk groups of defenders.

ISHR’s Director of Human Rights Council Advocacy, Michael Ineichen, said many of the proposed amendments represent a renewed attempt by a minority of hard-line States to undermine the protection international law provides for human rights defenders.

‘The suggestion of replacing the well-established term ‘human rights defender’ in the resolution with a long and convoluted formulation is ridiculous,’ Mr Ineichen said. ‘Human rights defenders are key agents of change, and their work is critical for human rights, the rule of law and democracy,’ Ineichen said. ‘Accessible terminology is vital to increasing public understanding of and support for their work.’

On 7 March, a global coalition of leading civil society organisations called for the consensus renewal of the mandate of the UN expert on human rights defenders. A diverse cross-regional group of ambassadors, experts and human rights defenders has also strongly backed the renewal of the mandate.

Attempts at reducing visibility and legitimacy of human rights defenders

Overall, six amendments have been proposed. ISHR’s overall position on the amendments is that the resolution, as currently drafted, represents a minimum consensus given the ‘unprecedented attacks’ on human rights defenders seen around the world.

  • Two amendments (L.44 and L.45) seek to replace the well-established term ‘human rights defenders’ with a more limiting formulation, seeking to give States the ability to arbitrarily restrict the human rights issues on which defenders work, and remove the term ‘women human rights defenders’ from the resolution.
  • One amendment (L.42), presented by the Russian Federation, seeks to replace consensus language from previous resolutions renewing the mandate with a selective quote from the 1998 Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Its effect would be to limit the full protection international law provides to human rights defenders, and open a door for States to legislate to restrict defenders in conflict with international human rights law;
  • One amendment (L.43), also presented by the Russian Federation, seeks to remove reference to previously adopted resolutions on the protection of human rights defenders. The inclusion of such references assists States to better understand the situation of human rights defenders and the obligations of States in this regard. Removing the references would run counter to the Council’s efforts at ensuring its work is visible, impact oriented, and provides easy to understand policy guidance.
  • Finally, one amendment (L.51), presented by China, the Russian Federation, Pakistan and Cuba, seeks to downplay the importance of the report of the Special Rapporteur, and thus ignore the evidence of the unprecedented attack on defenders.

ISHR calls on all Member States of the Human Rights Council to reject these amendments, and resist attempts to legitimise arbitrary restrictions and attacks on human rights defenders by their sponsors.

Potential focus on environmental and corporate accountability defenders

A final amendment, L.46, presented by South Africa could potentially contribute to strengthening the text. The amendment seeks to include a particular focus on ‘human right defenders active in the areas of environment, corporate accountability, indigenous issues, children, anti-racism and advocacy against racially motivated killings, and cultural rights’, many of whom have been highlighted by the Special Rapporteur’s recent reports as facing particular risks.

However, its proposed placement in a paragraph forcused on women human rights defenders is problematic in that it would dilute the recognition of the specific threats and protection needs of WHRDs. In order to be acceptable, the amendment should be re-formulated to reflect the full spectrum of defenders who are particularly at risk or exposed as enumerated by the Special Rapporteur, and placed independently of the paragraph focused on women human rights defenders.

Read the statement from the International Service for Human Rights.

In an Unprecedented No-Show, the U.S. Pulls Out of Planned Human Rights Hearing

The United States has pulled its participation from hearings planned for today by a regional human rights body that has enjoyed the support of every U.S. administration since its founding.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is meeting in Washington, D.C., for a regular session covering human rights issues spanning North and South America. The hearings today are scheduled to cover the Trump administration’s attempt to ban immigration from six predominantly Muslim countries, its immigration enforcement and detention policies, and its approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ACLU is testifying on Tuesday at hearings that can be livestreamed here.

In the past, when U.S. governments have sought to express displeasure at having their records scrutinized, they have occasionally protested by sending lower-level officials. But today’s refusal to engage the commission at all is a deeply troubling indication of its disrespect for human rights norms and the institutions that oversee their protection.

Read the full story from ACLU

LBT Women’s Economic Empowerment: Reflections on the Successes and Struggles from the CSW

As week one of the 61st UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) draws to a close here in New York, a wide range of LBT activists, researchers and governments have reflected on how or whether this annual UN conference can address the struggles facing LBT individuals, especially in relation to this year’s priority theme,  “women’s economic empowerment in the changing world of work.”

By Erin Aylward

This year’s CSW appears to reflect a particularly hostile atmosphere to LGBTI rights: the United States has included representatives of two organizations known to oppose the UN human rights system, LGBTI rights, and women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in its official delegation; human rights defenders from the six countries targeted in the travel ban have been denied visas and thus the opportunity to be heard during this year’s CSW; and US State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts of over 50% in funding for UN programs. Undeniably, we have entered troubling and uncertain times in international relations and human rights advocacy.

Yet, alongside these alarming developments in the international arena, substantive achievements in advancing the rights of LBT individuals around the world have been gained since last year’s CSW. In recognition of the need to celebrate the victories that have forged while also reflecting on the outstanding challenges, ARC International, in partnership with the Canadian government and the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the United Nations, hosted a side event on March 13 that sought to shed light on the successes and barriers to LBT women’s economic empowerment.

For decades, LGBTI activists from around the world have emphasized that advancing the civil/political rights of their communities only matters as much as access to economic rights and opportunities. As Raphael Crowe (event moderator and ILO senior gender specialist) noted, these comments are borne out by what preliminary data exists: the ILO’s PRIDE Project found that, in each of the nine countries that were studied2, LGBT workers face discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity throughout their schooling, in accessing employment, and throughout the employment cycle.

Yet, notwithstanding the numerous challenges facing LBT women’s ability to access economic empowerment, this panel also highlighted some encouraging successes and best practices that civil society and government alike have helped to forge. Argentine Ambassador Martín García Moritán noted that states have a responsibility to address LBT employment discrimination. For Argentina, this has ranged from reforms in the education system to developing workshops with the Ministry of Labour and Employment and the private sector to help bridge the employment gap for trans individuals.

This year’s Commission on the Status of Women does not reflect a particularly favourable environment for LBT and women’s human rights defenders. It is clear that, at the international level, previous gains will have to be defended and the shrinking of space for civil society has to be actively resisted against. Yet, for those of us who were fortunate to attend this side-event on LBT economic empowerment, it was impossible to not be struck with a sense of hope, conviction, and renewed inspiration to continue with the struggles ahead.

Read the full article from ARC International.

US Government Appoints Hate Group Representatives to CSW

On Monday, 13 March, the United States Department of State announced that its official delegation to the 61st annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) includes representatives of two organizations known to oppose the UN human rights system, LGBTIQ rights, and women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights: the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM) and the Heritage Foundation. C-FAM is labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Heritage Foundation called for a cut in funding for programs combatting violence against women and claims that anti-discrimination laws grant LGBT people “special privileges.”

Jessica Stern, Executive Director of OutRight Action International, a twenty-seven-year-old international LGBTI human rights organization with ECOSOC status, commented on the US Delegation to the UN CSW.

“In their Senate confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Tillerson and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley repeatedly pledged to uphold the right to be free from discrimination as an American value. The appointment of these organizations to the official US delegation undermines their positions. I urge Secretary Tillerson and Ambassador Haley to ensure that the US delegation maintains non-discrimination at the CSW in the face of obvious pressure from these newly appointed members of the delegation.

Fundamentalist notions about how women and girls should behave should never be the basis of advising or negotiating US foreign policy.

It is also a bad sign that two organizations that have tried to delegitimize the United Nations and human rights internationally now sit on the official US delegation. Maybe the violent mentality that got C-FAM labeled a hate group successfully panders to their base, but the US government must ensure protection for the world’s most vulnerable people.”

C-FAM regularly releases homophobic vitriol on its website, has called for the criminalization of homosexuality and has even espoused violence. Its president, Austin Ruse, has said, “The penalties for homosexual behavior should not be jail time, but having some laws on the books, even if unenforced, would help society to teach what is good, and also would prevent such truly harmful practices as homosexual marriage and adoption.” In defiance of evidence, Ruse has asserted that, “the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to public health and morals.” During an interview in 2014, Ruse commented that he hoped his children would attend private colleges, “to keep them so far away from the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities, who should all be taken out and shot.”  The Southern Poverty Law Center has considered C-FAM a hate group since 2014.

The Heritage Foundation and its sister organizations has at least 11 past employees now working in the Trump Administration and has provided much of the domestic and foreign policy blueprint the Trump Administration used in its first days in office.  In its call to cut funding for programs combatting violence against women, the Heritage Foundation said such programs amount to a, “misuse of federal resources and a distraction from concerns that are truly the province of the federal government.”  The organization continually purports that anti-discrimination laws inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity are unjustified. It alleges that such laws, “do not protect equality before the law; instead, they grant special privileges.”  The organization steadfastly rallies against the rights of transgender people. It claims that, “[W]e are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other.”

Jessica Stern continued her comments on these events:

“Practically speaking, the US should support CSW conclusions that condemn discrimination on any basis, support family diversity, and support the full range of conditions that enable women’s economic empowerment, including comprehensive family planning. While these ideas might seem like a leap of faith after the appointment of these organizations, these positions are the logical application of the principle of non-discrimination. Human rights are based on indivisibility, which also means that the US cannot credibly support non-discrimination for LGBTI people while opposing family planning. Women’s rights, reproductive choice, LGBTI rights, climate justice, and the strength of the international human rights system all go hand-in-hand.

Many Americans have recently asked themselves, what does foreign policy matter to human rights at home? Now, we have our answer. The same groups advocating against women’s rights, immigrants, Muslims, the Affordable Care Act, and LGBTI rights in the US are taking these views to the international stage. What the US says about women from around the world at the CSW will be a sign of things to come for American women, so it is essential that the US uphold American values and prevent all forms of discrimination at the CSW. Domestic and foreign policy are two sides of the same coin.”

Every day around the world, LGBTIQ people’s human rights and dignity are abused in ways that shock the conscience. The stories of their struggles and their resilience are astounding, yet remain unknown—or willfully ignored—by those with the power to make change. OutRight Action International, founded in 1990 as the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, works alongside LGBTIQ people in the Global South, with offices in six countries, to help identify community-focused solutions to promote policy for lasting change. We vigilantly monitor and document human rights abuses to spur action when they occur. We train partners to expose abuses and advocate for themselves. Headquartered in New York City, OutRight is the only global LGBTIQ-specific organization with a permanent presence at the United Nations in New York that advocates for human rights progress for LGBTIQ people.

Read the full statement from OutRight Action International.

The time has already come for #LBTI persons at #CSW61

States, institutions, UN agencies, and everybody involved in and with responsibilities towards the world of work must commit themselves to act right now and address the need to guarantee the right to work for Iesbians, bisexual women, trans and intersex persons.

By Mariana Winocur

As ARC’s Communications Officer, I have been investigating data for “talking points” and social media messaging around the theme for this year’s CSW. In compiling some of this research, some of the questions that I began thinking about included the following:

  • To what extent is CSW considering the word “women”?
  • How does this word include the enormous and rich variety of lesbians, bisexual women, trans and intersex persons (LBTI)?
  • How do we ensure that no one will be left behind, as promised in the Sustainable Development Goals?

Trying to find out some answers, I started looking for specific information regarding LBTI persons in the world of work, and information more broadly related to economic empowerment. It would be an understatement to point out that there is very little data, and the data that has been published depicts a worrying situation and leaves out entire regions where we know there are huge barriers for the economic empowerment of our communities. What exists clearly shows alarming trends about discrimination linked to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics. Here are just a few examples of what I found:

  • In most countries trans persons are completely excluded from formal employment. This leaves few survival strategies, which inevitably increases their vulnerability.[1]
  • Social and familial violence hinder trans women’s possibilities in the formal labor market. About  90 percent of trans women in the Americas engage in sex work.[2]
  • Some lesbians face discrimination at work because they don’t look “enough feminine”. [3]
  • A US study on queer female shows that those  who apply for administrative jobs in the United States, are about 30 percent less likely to receive a callback compared with the straight female applicants of equal qualifications. [4]
  • Within paid work spaces in Europe, an average of 26 percent of lesbians felt discriminated against or harassed based on their sexual orientation.[5]
  • An average of 23 percent of unemployed European bisexual people feel discriminated against or harassed for being perceived as bisexual. [6]
  • A survey report of Australians born with atypical sex characteristics found that there are high rates of poverty: the majority earn an income 41 percent less than the average.[7]

This panorama shows that there is a lot to be done to economically empower LBTI persons and leave no one behind.

Read the full article from ARC International.

Spanish police seize Catholic group’s anti-transgender bus

Police in Madrid have banned a bus emblazoned with the anti-transgender message: “Boys have penises, girls have vulvas. Do not be fooled.”

Catholic group Hazte Oir, which translates as “Make Yourself Heard”, was about to embark on a nationwide tour in their bright orange bus when Spanish authorities impounded the vehicle, branding the tour “a hate campaign based on intolerance”.

The Catholic group is thought to have launched the campaign in response to posters put up in northern Spain by transgender rights group Chrysallis which read: “There are girls with penises and boys with vulvas. It’s as simple as that.”

Hazte Oir launched a petition to ban the posters, but did not manage to gather enough signatures.

Purificacion Causapie, a spokeswoman for the socialist party, said the bus was “contrary to the dignity and rights of transsexual children”, and urged the mayor to ensure that Madrid remained “a city free of discrimination, violence and attacks on minors”.

Madrid’s mayor Manuela Carmena said she wanted the bus to leave the city “as soon as possible”.

Members of Hazte Oir said the ban was illegal and that they plan to acquire a new bus.

Read the full article from International Business Times.